The Thesis committee for Elizabeth Anne Bowers

Certifies that this is the approved version of the following thesis:

The Baba-e-Urdu : Abdul Haq and the Role of

Language in Indian Nationalism

APPROVED BY

SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:

Supervisor: ______Kathryn Hansen

______Gail Minault

The Baba-e-Urdu: Abdul Haq and the Role of

Language in Indian Nationalism

by

Elizabeth Anne Bowers, B.A.

Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School

of the University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Arts

The University of Texas at Austin

May 2010

The Baba-e-Urdu: Abdul Haq and the Role of Language

in Indian Nationalism

by

Elizabeth Anne Bowers, M.A.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2010

SUPERVISOR: Kathryn Hansen

Abdul Haq was the secretary of the Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu from 1912 to 1961. He was also a founder of Osmania University, one of the first universities in India to provide instruction in an Indian vernacular. He had a lifelong devotion towards improving the status of Urdu and of the Indian Muslim community at large. He was the figure most involved with the standardization of Urdu and establishment of this language as a symbol of Muslim identity. Through an analysis of Abdul Haq’s involvement in language reform movements and the politics of the early 20 th century, especially considering the fallout after the 1936 meeting of the Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad, I seek to show the nature of language as a nationalist tool. I argue that language is not inherently associated with the nation-building process, but that it must first be standardized into a form which can be used as a political tool and a point of identification for the community rallied behind it. iii

Contents

CHAPTER ONE : ABDUL HAQ ’S BACKGROUND AND INFLUENCE 1

CHAPTER TWO : THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE DEBATE AND THE 1936 AKHIL BHARATIYA SAHITYA PARISHAD CONFERENCE 25

CHAPTER THREE : LANGUAGE AND NATION FORMATION 54

APPENDIX I: 74

APPENDIX II 76

WORKS CITED 77

VITA 83

iv

Chapter One: Abdul Haq’s Background and Influence

“Pakistan was not created by Jinnah, nor was it created by Iqbal; it was

Urdu that created Pakistan.” 1 These words were spoken in 1961 by Abdul Haq in the last year of his long and controversial life. The truth of his statement is debatable, but beyond fact or fiction it says much more about the process of nation-building which occurred in South Asia in the first half of the 20 th -century.

The idea of language being an aspect of the creation of the nation is in no way new. In this thesis, I argue that language itself is not inherently a part of nation- building, but it is a tool of unification and exclusion selected by nationalist groups. I further establish that for language to be used in such a way it must go through a process of standardization utilizing aspects of publication and education reform before it can be used for political purposes. Abdul Haq is a figure mentioned only briefly in current English scholarship, but he was a key player in the standardization and political fate of the Urdu language. By looking at his leadership of institutions like Osmania University and the Anjuman

Taraqqi-e-Urdu along with his response to the 1936 meeting of the Bharatiya

Sahitya Parishad, I show that Haq was an important figure in the Indian national

1Amrit Rai , A House Divided: The Origin and Development of Hindi/Hindavi (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1984) 264. 1 language debate and in the process through which Urdu became established as a language of identification for the North Indian Muslim community.

Though Abdul Haq is a generally overlooked figure in current scholarship, he is portrayed with a very specific image. Often presented as a thoughtful old man with a well-manicured white beard and fez-style topi , he came to be known by a number of names. He is only in passing referred to as

“Maulvi Abdul Haq Sahib” in writing, but more commonly writers take to calling him, almost endearingly, “Maulvi Sahib.” Most famously and reverentially, he was bestowed with the nickname “Baba-e-Urdu.” Translated sometimes as “The

Father of Urdu” or “The Grand Old Man of Urdu,” 2 this moniker calls to mind a life completely devoted to the cause of this language and those who united behind it. He is known for his influence on literary criticism, Urdu education reform, and for his standardization and modernization of Urdu grammar and vocabulary. Haq was a constant participant in the Urdu literary and linguistic sphere from just before the turn of the century to his death in 1961. The way his opinions and loyalties changed over time when he stepped into the political sphere, especially as a result of the 1936 Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad conference, demonstrates the changing nature and use of language during the nationalist era of pre-partition India.

2 Harish Trivedi, “The Progress of Hindi, Part 2: Hindi and the Nation,” Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia, ed. Sheldon Pollock (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003) 977. 2

Abdul Haq was a contemporary of men like Gandhi and Nehru. Also significant was his status as a product and participant in a time of Muslim intellectual movements including Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s Aligarh movement, the founding Osmania University and Haq’s lengthy tenure as the Secretary of the Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu. I look first to Abdul Haq’s biography for clues about what it was that led him to the place in history where he both cooperated and combated with the better known figures of Indian nationalist and independence movements.

Abdul Haq was born on August 20 th , 1870, as the second son of Sheikh

Ali Hussein. 3 Mukhtaruddin Ahmad adds an interesting note in his biography about the background of Abdul Haq’s name. He writes that previously the men in this family were generally given the name Hassan or Hussein. However, the spiritual guide, or murshid, of Sheikh Ali Hussein prescribed that he should give his sons names involving the suffix Haq which means “the Truth” or “the one true God .” The specific reasons behind this mandate are unknown, but it can be supposed that it was meant to give Sheikh Ali Hussein’s sons an auspicious beginning. In any case, his first son was named Zia ul-Haq and the second, of course, would become the more well-known Baba-e-Urdu , Abdul Haq. 4 It cannot be known whether his name played a part, but Abdul Haq would certainly be destined to do great things.

3 Mukhtar-ud-din Ahmad, Abdul Haq , trans. my own (New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1991) 11. 4 Ibid. 3

According to Ahmad, Haq was born and spent part of his childhood in a small town near Hapur, U.P. allegedly called Saravah. When Haq was quite young, his family moved to Punjab, where he completed his primary education in the city of Firozpur. 5 In 1888, when Abdul Haq reached age 18 and completed his primary education, he had the great fortune of joining one of the main centers of North Indian Muslim intellectual thought by gaining admission to the Aligarh Muslim Anglo-Oriental College. At this institution, he came under the guidance of famed Muslim intellectuals such as Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and

Mohammad Shibli Nomani. Analyzing Haq’s affiliations and personal convictions post-graduation, it is certain that his time in Aligarh spent in the company of such influential figures and politics had a great impact on the man which he would become.

The establishment and influence of Aligarh Muslim Anglo-Oriental

College are both matters of great importance when looking at the path which

Indian Muslim politics would take in the following decades. This college was, of course, the brainchild of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan. Iqbal writes of Sir Sayyid that he was “the first Indian Muslim who felt the need of a fresh orientation of Islam and worked for it…There can be no denying the fact that this sensitive soul was the first to react to the modern age.” 6 It was precisely this reaction which

5 Ahmad, 12. 6 Tariq Hasan, The Aligarh Movement and the Making of the Indian Muslim Mind: 1857-2002 (New Delhi: Rupa Co, 2006), 47. 4 resulted in the eventual establishing of the college in Aligarh. To understand the reasons behind the establishment of this institution and the great influence it would have on men like Abdul Haq, we must first take a look at Sir Sayyid’s personal ideology.

Sir Sayyid was a greatly influential figure in the burgeoning North Indian

Muslim intellectual movements at the end of the 19 th century. He was also a highly controversial figure. One might say that anyone who has made any sort of impact on society is bound to make some people uncomfortable. Sir Sayyid, in particular, is often seen as having been a British loyalist. During his time, however, support of continued English presence in India was not an uncommon sentiment. With Sir Sayyid, it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that he had a great admiration for the West. One quite telling letter is cited in Tariq Hasan’s book on the Aligarh movement. Sir Sayyid writes on his opinions of the British during an extended stay in England in 1869. Though he does make sure to mention that he does not “absolve the English in India of discourtesy, and of looking upon the natives of that country as animals and beneath contempt,” 7 the great majority of his letter consists of glowing praise for the English. He commends them for the high level of education for both sexes while also noting the superior organization of the economy. Even with his assurance that he does not absolve the English for their behavior in India, he adds a seemingly

7 Ibid, 42. 5 contradictory remark that, compared to the English, Indians “are as like them as a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man.” 8

Regardless of what the reaction to Sir Sayyid’s words may have been, he wasted no time in trying to resolve the problems he saw as plaguing his own community. Not long after returning to India, he created an organization called the Khwastgaran-i-Tarawwi-i-Talim-i-Musalman (Committee for the Need of

Muslim Education) in order to “analyze the cause of Muslim backwardness in education.” 9 Just five years after Sir Sayyid’s founding of this organization, the

Aligarh Muslim Anglo-Oriental College finally came into being.

Sir Sayyid’s goals in establishing this institution were manifold with the general idea being to modernize Muslim education through incorporation of a more European system and to improve education overall for the Muslim community. Peter Hardy, in his book on Muslims in British India, cites a number of disheartening statistics showing just how few Muslims were completing higher English education the in mid-19 th century. According to the Hunter

Education Commission report of 1882, “a number of Muslim witnesses (…) themselves conceded, to a religious and cultural reluctance, or to a determination to complete their religious education first.” 10 It would then make sense to create an institution which would not only promote more advanced

8 Ibid, 42-43. 9 Ibid, 43. 10 Peter Hardy, The Muslims of British India (London: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 93. 6 secular knowledge but would also accommodate the religious needs of its students. In fact, it was Sir Sayyid’s hope that the education provided at Aligarh would create the impetus to look at contemporary European science and scholarship under the lens of Islamic learning. David Lelyveld writes that, in Sir

Sayyid’s opinion, this kind of European knowledge “must be dealt with seriously, either to be claimed or refuted by Islam."11 It also needs to

“encourage individual judgment in the evaluation of the sources of Islamic revelation in the light of ‘rational’ and ‘empirical criteria.’” 12 Religious reform, however, was not Sir Sayyid’s sole motivation.

Sir Sayyid subscribed to the ideology that Indians, specifically Muslims, must be willing to compromise with their rulers to a certain degree in order to retain any sort of dominant status. This is why it was necessary to adopt elements of Western education. Since their British rulers had specific standards for education, members of the Muslim community would have to meet those standards if they expected to get ahead in society. However, it was important to still retain enough elements of their culture so as not to become completely westernized. In later years, it appears that this type of educational reform and compromise for the sake of communal preservation had the greatest effect on the young Abdul Haq.

11 David Lelyveld, “Disenchantment at Aligarh: Islam and the Realm of the Secular in Late Nineteenth Century India,” Die Welt des Islams 22.1/4 (1982): 88. 12 Ibid, 99. 7

In addition to his educational reform motivations, Sir Sayyid was quite outspoken about his own politics. One well-known sentiment was his opposition to the Indian National Congress. It was during the height of animosity against and distrust of Congress policies that Abdul Haq began his education at

Aligarh. In 1887, Sir Sayyid stated the view that the All-India National Congress was a biased organization, saying, “We can prove by simple arithmetic that there will be four votes for the Hindu to every one for the Mohammadan. Now how can the Mohammadan guard his interests? It will be like a game of dice, in which one man had four dice and the other only one.” 13 Not long after this, in

1888, he started “The Patriotic Organization” in opposition to the Congress.14

Noting this, it is not hard to see that the young Abdul Haq was entering into a political and intellectual atmosphere which was not necessarily communally opposed to Hindus, but was actively concerned about the position and livelihood of the Muslim community in the future of India.

One can be sure that while Abdul Haq was completing his education at

Aligarh, he was aware of and influenced by the views of his superiors. As far as his more official education, however, he focused on the study of languages important to the Muslim community. What he writes most extensively about is his study of Farsi. In a book of Haq’s correspondences, compiled by Badr

13 Hafeez Malik, “The Marxist Literary Movement in India and Pakistan,” The Journal of Asian Studies 26.4 (1967): 224. 14 Ibid. 8

Muniruddin, we find a nostalgic letter written in 1960 which he had sent to

Abdul-Latif Azmi recounting his interactions with Shibli Nomani during his days at Aligarh.15 This rare letter provides some general insight into his time as a student. He writes that prior to attending Aligarh, he could already read Arabic.

Upon his enrollment at Aligarh, he also chose to study Farsi. In his own words,

“It was my happy fate that I took Farsi.” 16 The reason for this happiness was that Shibli Nomani became something like an ustad to him during his Farsi education. In the rest of his letter to Azmi, Haq writes that over the years people have stated that he is the opposite of Shibli. 17 However, he states that this is indeed false while emphasizing the great respect he held for this man. Over the years that would follow, one can observe the striking similarity of their views. As a specific example, they both saw the importance of translation in modernizing education for the Muslim community.

Abdul Haq graduated with a B.A. from Aligarh in 1894. At this time, it was not the full university that is in existence today, but instead functioned under the title of Madrasat-ul-Uloom. Soon after graduation, Haq soon found himself in the Deccan where he would spend the next three decades and do much of his most important work. In 1895, he travelled to Hyderabad where he began his career in education and became the headmaster of a school called the

15 Badr Muniruddin, comp., Ruq’at-i-Abdulhaq (Khazinah-e-Ilm: Lahore, 2004) 86-88. ہ ش ﮩ ہ ﮟ ﮯ ر ۔ 16 17 Muniruddin, 88. 9

Madrassa Asifiya. 18 For the next twelve years he held a number of positions which would give him the experience necessary to become a reformer in the realm of Urdu education: translator for the home secretariat in 1900, assistant to the director of education in 1911, inspector of schools in Aurangabad in

1912. These jobs must have made him aware of the importance of language both in education and the government. As an inspector, he also would have realized the situation of education at that time. It is no surprise that this was the decade in which he starts his work towards reform. In 1912, Haq becomes the secretary of an organization started a decade earlier called the Anjuman

Taraqqi-e-Urdu. 19 His involvement with this organization is what he eventually becomes his greatest passion and what he will be most well-known for, but in

1918 he receives an opportunity which offered him the opportunity to contribute to the development of the Urdu language. He becomes one of the founders of

Osmania University which sought to use an Indian vernacular, Urdu, as their pedagogical language.

Osmania University was established in Hyderabad in 1918 and, similar to

Haq’s alma mater in Aligarh, it “was a response to the intellectual challenges posed by the West and those practices of science and knowledge that were

18 Ibid, 37. (.Society for the Progress of Urdu (Ibid, 38 – ا اردو 19 10 understood to be a peculiar mark of the West’s triumph.” 20 Of particular interest is the fact that Osmania was the first “Indian University to use a modern

Indian language, Urdu, rather than English as its medium of instruction.” 21 In the very year of inauguration, Abdul Haq was given a prestigious position as the head of the Urdu department.22 He would remain involved with the workings of this institution as long as he remained in India. Indeed, it would be difficult to separate the man from the institution, as his words could be found at the beginning of the university’s textbooks. 23 Kavita Datla includes Haq’s statement in her essay on Osmania University, and it is worth quoting here as well. He writes:

In the life of every nation in the world, there comes a time when signs of

deterioration begin to appear in its mental powers; material for discovery

and creation, thought and consideration are nearly lost; the strength of

imagination’s flight and vision becomes narrow and limited; the

agreement of scholarship rests upon a few customary facts and on

mimicry. At that time, the nation either becomes defeated and lifeless, or

to recover, it must accept the influence of other advanced countries. In

20 Kavita Datla, “A Worldly Vernacular: Urdu at Osmania University,” Modern Asian Studies 43.5 (2009): 1118. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid, 1129. 23 Ibid, 1118. 11

every era of world history, there is evidence of this. (…) This is the

condition of India.24

In light of this statement, one finds that Haq’s approach to the Urdu language differs from the methods of the more puritanical reformers of both Hindi and

Urdu which were focused more on the antiquity and authenticity of a language than any sort of universality. Instead of trying to return the language to some type of overly Persianized root, his goal was to make Urdu more accessible.

Kavita Datla writes about the mission of Osmania, saying that those associated with the university were “beset by the burden of making Urdu a language representative of common people and, in turn, a language that would be serviceable for them, that would encompass all of their linguistic needs.” 25

For the purpose of reforming and modernizing the Urdu language, a translation bureau was created in conjunction with Osmania University. In a position that almost quite literally earned him the title Baba-e-Urdu, Abdul Haq served as the head of the organization.26 Though the primary goal of this bureau was to prepare books for the educational curriculum, 27 this seemingly straightforward task exposed a number of other difficult obstacles associated with the language itself. While Urdu had an expansive and colorful literary history, it was found to be somewhat lacking in modern vocabulary. For Abdul

24 Datla, 1117. 25 Ibid, 1120. 26 Ibid, 1129. 27 Ibid, 1130. 12

Haq this was unacceptable, because in his words, “To whatever extent a nation’s language is limited, it is to that extent that its place in civilization or rather, amongst humanity, is lowered.” 28 For this reason, something would have to be done, and Abdul Haq would be a central figure in creating the solution.

The work of the Translation Bureau ended up being quite extensive. Over the thirty-year lifespan of the organization, around 100,000 new Urdu terms were created and over 300 books were translated. 29

In Hyderabad, Abdul Haq became a colleague of Sayyid Ross Masood, the vice chancellor of Osmania University, who also happened to be the grandson of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and had A Passage to India dedicated to him by E. M. Forster. 30 Masood and Haq were part of the founding group that worked together to create the curriculum for Osmania University. 31 After their time working together, Haq maintained a continued correspondence with

Masood well into the 1930s. Many of Haq’s letters to Masood are available in

Urdu in Badr Muniruddin’s compilation. One letter, which he wrote in 1921, shows the high level of affection Haq held for Masood. Aside from complaining of the extreme heat of Hyderabad, he also writes to Masood, “I do not know

28 Ibid, 1131. 29 N. Jayaram, “The Language Question in Higher Education: Trends and Issues,” Higher Education 26 (1993): 109. 30 Datla, 1121. 31 Ibid, 1122. 13 how to thank you for all you have done for me. Words are insufficient to express my sense of gratitude.” 32

More interesting is a letter dated April 11, 1923. Around this time, part of the Translation Bureau’s activities involved the creation of new vocabulary to better suit the translation of more modern works. 33 Perhaps it is because of this important work that Haq became motivated to compile a new English-Urdu dictionary. Haq writes to Masood in the first stages of this undertaking, referencing an earlier request by Masood for a list of names of people whom he thought may be useful collaborators in the creation of this dictionary.

Unfortunately, the list which Abdul Haq included is unavailable, but at the very least we know approximately the time which Haq began his work.

In cooperation with Osmania and the Translation Bureau was the

Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu. By the time Osmania was established, Abdul Haq had already been the secretary of the Anjuman for six years. With this involvement, Haq was following in the footsteps of the great minds of Aligarh, especially his former ustad , Shibli Nomani. He would also use his leadership role in the Anjuman to complement the work he was undertaking at Osmania.

To understand his role with the Anjuman, we must take a brief look at the history of this organization.

32 Muniruddin, 130. 33 Datla, 1138. 14

Preceding the establishment of the Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu was the creation and failure of the Urdu Defence Association, which was a counter- movement to the Nagari Pracharini Sabha’s efforts towards equal recognition for the Devanagari script in certain levels of the administration. 34 The Urdu

Defence Association was originally founded by Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan because of his stance that the recognition of Hindi for use in certain levels of government was not just in order to gain equal status with Urdu. He believed that Urdu itself was being slowly displaced and this was a severe “threat to

Muslim economic and cultural interests.” 35 The Urdu Defence Association was rather short-lived, however. Its overtly political intentions did not please British officials. The British were not subtle in expressing their displeasure. One of the leaders of the organization was even “warned by the lieutenant governor not to participate in any openly political agitation that might disturb the administration.” 36 With this pressure and the death of Sir Sayyid in 1898, the

Urdu Defence Association fell apart by the end of 1900. 37 This failure did not long dissuade the supporters of Urdu from continuing to work towards protecting and reforming their language. However, future organizations such as the Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu would have to use other tactics in order to

34 Trivedi, 966. 35 Jyotirindra Dasgupta, Language Conflict and National Development (Berkeley: University of California Price, 1970) 104. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 15 accomplish their goals, while remaining within the good favor of the British government.

During the winter of 1902-3, the Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu came into being after a meeting of The All-India Muslim Educational Conference which was held in Delhi. In Shan Muhammad’s collection of presidential addresses, he credits this gathering as being the birthplace of a number of Indo-Muslim movements, beginning with Aligarh but also influencing future institutions like

Osmania University and, debatably, the Jamia Millia Islamia. 38 During this specific session the Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu was added to that list. The president of the conference was Aga Khan III, who emphasized in his speech the need for education in the sciences alongside religion. 39 This had become a common speaking point over the life of the conference. In the very first session in 1886, Maulana Shibli Nomani had propounded, “Mahomadans stand in great need of high education in European Sciences and Literature.” 40 He also claimed that any promotion of an “Oriental” education needed to be accomplished by the efforts of Muslims themselves and this education could not be divided from the teaching of theology. 41 It is on this point that one can see some of the effect that Shibli’s tutelage must have had on Abdul Haq.

38 Shan Muhammad, The All-India Muslim Educational Conference (New Delhi: A.P.H. Publishing Corporation, 2003) xxii. 39 Ibid, 115. 40 Ibid, 3. 41 Ibid. 16

Shibli was one of the founding members of the Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu.

In 1903, during the formation of the Anjuman, it was guided by a British official called Professor Palmer who also held a position at the Government College of

Lahore. 42 Shibli served in the role of secretary, the position which would later be filled by Abdul Haq. As a member of the Anjuman, Shibli was seen as being more focused solely on the promotion of Urdu literature and literacy than being concerned with actual political involvement. Eventually, this would be part of the reason for his departure from the organization. Akhtar Husain Raipuri writes in his autobiography, Gard-e-Raah, that Shibli was the one who “laid the foundation of (…) the Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu.” 43 He, like Haq, understood the value of translation and put in place a plan and system for the translation of certain books from both the English and Arabic languages, such as the works of

Max Mueller, into Urdu. 44

Though Shibli had a great influence on the beginnings of the Anjuman,

Haq was “responsible for the development of [this] (...) institution.” 45 His devotion to the Anjuman and the cause of Urdu is well known. The most telling evidence of the Anjuman’s place in Abdul Haq’s life was the fact that after his death the Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu was the eventual beneficiary of his life

42 Ghulam Rabbani, Anjuman Taraqqi Urdu ki Kahani. Trans. my own (Delhi: Anjuman Taraqqi- e-Urdu, 1939) 6. 43 Akhtar Raipuri , The Dust of the Road. Trans. Amina Azfar (London: Oxford University Press, 2007) 42. 44 Rabbani, 8-9. 45 Raipuri, 42. 17 savings. 46 As a man who had never taken on the role of a husband or father, the closest thing he had to offspring was this organization. When Abdul Haq took control of the Anjuman in 1912, it did not take him long to start making progress towards improving its overall organizational structure. One of the most important steps he took was to “bring stability to the Anjuman’s finances, starting with an annual grant from the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1914.” 47 It was also because of the funding from the Nizam that Haq was able to start work on a “dictionary of scientific and technical terms” in Urdu. 48 Abdul Haq’s work on this dictionary would also become one of his most lengthy and important efforts in the following decades.

Another significant development Abdul Haq added to the Anjuman to assert its status was the publication of the journal Urdu. For anyone who has studied this time period in India, it seems that no organization is truly legitimate unless it has some type of publication with which to propagate its views. Many figures and organizations of this time period had their own journals. For example, Premchand published a journal called Hans and Gandhi had the

Harijan . For Haq and the Anjuman both, the channel of communication provided by Urdu became a useful tool for the promotion and standardization of the Urdu language during the half-century period the journal was published. With this

46 Ibid, 70. 47 Christopher King, 163. 48 Ibid. 18 journal he printed essays, poetry, translations and political statements from a number of authors, including Abdul Haq himself. Akhtar Hussain Raipuri wrote that Haq published one of Raipuri’s own highly political essays in the Urdu and that Haq was the only one with the “courage to accept such explosive material for publication.” 49 One might assert that Haq’s journal was not only a channel for expressing a certain political view but also used for creating a new type of

Urdu literary canon. Often, the works that were first published in Urdu were later released in book format. As a specific example, several articles which Raipuri had published in Urdu were eventually published in anthologies of his writing. 50

Perhaps one of the most important roles this journal played during these early decades was in conjunction with the work being done at the Translation

Bureau at Osmania University. While Abdul Haq and his associates were hard at work creating the vocabulary that would bring Urdu into the modern age, it was necessary to make other members of the Urdu intelligensia aware of the changes and updates that were being made. For this reason, Urdu became a useful tool for the proliferation of these new terms. After meetings of the translation bureau, Haq would publish a number of the newly created terms in the journal, “hoping to elicit responses from the Urdu-reading public about this basic problem of terminology.” 51 Abdul Haq realized that in order to reform the

49 Raipuri, 51. 50 Ibid, 57. 51 Datla, 1139. 19

Urdu language and update its vocabulary in a way that would be accepted by the literate public, a variety of scholars and litterateurs would have to be incorporated into the process. He was of the opinion that there would need to be “at least two types of men, scientific and linguistic experts. This way, the new vocabulary would not seem inappropriate either to scholars ( ahl-i-ilm ) or to people whose mother tongue was Urdu ( ahl-i-zuban ).” 52

Apart from Abdul Haq’s deep involvement in these educational and linguistic ventures, Haq was involved in a number of literary ventures. Though he was not known for writing poetry or fiction, he was an often cited source for literary criticism. He is quoted numerous times in Amrit Rai’s A House Divided , in reference to his writings on a number of Urdu authors throughout history. In one passage, Haq, who was also known for his deep interest in Dakhani Urdu, writes about the poet Quli Qutb Shah in order to establish the fact that he was the first Urdu poet and not Wali Aurangabadi. 53 Later on, Haq is shown as critiquing Syed Insha Allah Khan’s ground-breaking book on “Urdu language and syntax,” Dariya-e-Latafat, while also contributing to the preface for the Urdu translation of that book. 54

With such an interest in literature, especially as it related to the development of the Urdu language, it is no surprise that Haq would become

52 Ibid. 53 Rai, 28-29. 54 Ibid. 20 associated with one of the most radical literature movements of the 1930s: the

All-India Progressive Writers’ Movement. This association, while being an important addition to the literary environment of 1930s India, was also indicative of the political climate of the time. Hafeez Malik writes about the influences of

Soviet and Marxist philosophy on the creation of this association. Malik notes that the first meeting of the All-India Progressive Writers’ Conference in

Lucknow was barely two years after that of the Union of Soviet Writers. 55 He puts forth that this timeliness was no coincidence because it “was the period of the United Front, and Soviet diplomacy encouraged foreign communist parties to enter into antifascist alliances. As a result, a number of Indian leftists chose to support this cause.

London was the location where a group of radicalized Indian graduate students developed the idea for this association. Among the founding members was the writer Mulk Raj Anand. 56 Baer writes in agreement with Malik’s view that “the PWA was conceived at the start as part of the internationally articulated cultural movement against fascism.” 57 For these progressive writers,

55 Hafeez Malik, “The Marxist Literary Movement in India and Pakistan” The Journal of Asian Studies 26.4 (1967) 649. 56 Ben C. Baer, “Shit Writing: Mulk Raj Anand’s Untouchable , the Image of Gandhi and the Progressive Writers’ Association,” Modernism/Modernity 16.3 (2009) 582. 57 Ibid. 21 literature was not simply produced for its own sake. Instead, it was “a political weapon from the arsenal of dialectical materialism.”58

Of course, the motivation behind this literary weaponry was not solely because of Soviet influence. The political context of this decade will be discussed in more detail later on, but suffice it to say that the actions and decisions of the British Raj during this era influenced a shift in the focus of many literary minds. Additionally, one of the goals of the association was to unite writers from the increasingly hostile Hindi and Urdu camps under the idea of progressive writing. Unfortunately, the ongoing language conflict had become so widespread by this time that the number of Hindi writers involved in this movement was sadly lacking. However, the list of Urdu writers’ names shows a wide variety, including those who were not actually affiliated with

Communist or Soviet groups. Aside from the leftists like Faiz Ahmad Faiz and

Sahir Ludhianvi, the non-Communists included names like Sarojini Naidu,

Premchand and, of course, Maulvi Abdul Haq. 59

Haq’s involvement with the Progressive Writers’ Association serves as an indication of his increasing political participation in addition to his educational activities. As noted previously by Raipuri, Abdul Haq had already taken to publishing inflammatory essays in his journal. He most certainly was aware of the increasingly tense situation between Hindi and Urdu speakers. As

58 Malik, 649. 59 Malik, 652. 22 will be shown later, the 1930s would be a turning point for Abdul Haq and his political sentiments.

From this short glimpse into the life of the man known as Baba-e-Urdu, we can see just how important a figure he was becoming during the first decades of the 20 th century. First of all, he was a product of the influential

Muslim intellectual minds at Aligarh. With the influence of men like Sir Sayyid and Shibli Nomani in mind, he soon became deeply involved in the modernization and reform of the Urdu language to assist in the progress and education of Indian Muslims. He was known for his role as the head of the Urdu department and as a leading member of the translation bureau at Osmania

University and also as the secretary of the Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu. He used his involvement to make all of these different elements work together. His leadership role in such a number of influential organizations also put him in a central position of authority beneficial to his ongoing pursuit towards establishing Urdu as an important language of status. He strove to prove that it had a place, not just with Indian Muslims, but with India and Indians in general.

Abdul Haq’s position in the realm of Indian language politics and controversy in the mid-1930s would be what eventually placed him in the middle of the climactic events of 1936. This was a year of political and communal turmoil in which the growing animosity and mistrust between Hindus and Muslims were coming to a head. North Indian Hindus had placed their

23 support firmly behind the cause of Hindi while Muslims, with the help of Haq’s efforts, were associating themselves more and more with the Urdu language.

Communal devotion to these respective languages was central to why the situation became so disastrous.

Having established the varied influences which helped to shape Abdul

Haq and his extensive involvement in both educational and literary movements, it is now necessary to detail his involvement on a more political scale. I take this up in the next chapter by exploring the historical context of the 1936 Akhil

Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad conference. In this chapter, I discuss organizations and figures associated with the Hindi/Urdu conflict along with actions taken by the British Raj which added to the political controversy. Finally, I look at Abdul

Haq’s reaction and greater consequences following the fallout of the 1936 meeting.

24

Chapter Two: The National Language Debate and the 1936 Akhil Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad Conference

In 1947, when the colonial government gave up their control over the

Indian subcontinent, the territory was divided into two countries, India and

Pakistan. Pakistan was created for Indian Muslims who had, by this time, found it impossible to resolve their conflict with the Hindu majority. Scholars of South

Asia often attempt to identify a certain event or place that made the partition of

India an unavoidable reality. The truth is that whatever conflict there may have been between Hindus and Muslims was the result of a complicated mix of characters, decisions and changing sentiments over an extended period of time. I assert that the 1936 meeting of the Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad can be seen as an important climax of religious and linguistic conflict.

One undeniable catalyst in this explosive mix was the British Raj and their political tactics. Over the course of North Indian language movements and the Hindi/Urdu conflict, the British government of India made several changes that would complicate and intensify the suspicions and animosities that were already developing between Hindus and Muslims. Two of the most important examples are the 1900 resolution which recognized the Nagari script and the

1935 Government of India Act. The reactions by certain groups and individuals, including Abdul Haq, to these changes and to the actions of the Bharatiya

25

Sahitya Parishad had lasting implications which played a part in the demand for a two-state solution.

The events leading up to the government resolution of April 1900 began with the founding of the Nagari Pracharini Sabha of Benares in 1893. Much like the Anjuman Taraqqi-e- Urdu, the Sabha originated in an educational environment. In this case, the institution was the Benares Sanskrit College which had been founded in 1792, long before the ruminations of the Aligarh movement. 60 Several young students of this college, including Shyam Sundar

Das, Ram Narayan Mishra and Shiv Kumar Singh, came together for the purpose of promoting equal recognition of the Nagari script in certain levels of administration in North India. Up to this point, only the Roman script and

Nastaliq were allowed. Though there were others involved in the development of this idea, these three men held the longest tenure and for this reason they are considered the most important founding members. 61 Not surprisingly, there were no Muslim members to be found among their ranks.

Much like the Urdu protection movement which formed in the early 20 th century, the original modus operandi of the Sabha was not explicitly political.

They were more focused on cultural and educational goals. Part of their activities involved establishing the Hindi language as intrinsically Indian . This

60 Christopher King One Language, Two Scripts: The Hindi Movement in Nineteenth Century North India (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1994) 90-91. 61 Ibid, 142. 26 was important with Hindi being seen increasingly as a “symbolic instrument for fighting colonialism and English.” 62 They believed that Urdu could not hold this position; partially because they viewed it as the language of invaders but also because of its designation by the British government as an administrative and court language. 63 In this way, the Sabha began their work to prove that Hindi and the Nagari script were everything that Urdu was not. In the words of Shiv

Prasad, “For Hindus, Hindi was a language purged of all the Arabic and Persian accretions which served to remind them of the Muslims’ supremacy while the

Nagri script had a religious significance.” 64 Specifically, Nagari was the same script that Sanskrit was written in. Since Sanskrit was an extremely old language and had religious meaning to Hindus, that same sentiment could be transferred to the Hindi language by means of script.

While men like Abdul Haq were trying to create a more modern Urdu to contend with English, organizations such as the Nagari Pracharini Sabha were attempting to situate the Hindi language further in the past. In order to accomplish this goal, “the NPS constructed a major myth about the antiquity of

‘Hindi’ by using the term to include older writings in other literary dialects, particularly Braj Bhasha, but to exclude modern writings in these same

62 Krishna Kumar, “Hindu Revivalism and Education in North-Central India,” Social Scientist 18.10 (1990): 6. 63 Ibid. 64 Shamsur Rahman Faruqi, “A Long History of Urdu Literary Culture, Part 1: Naming and Placing a Literary Culture.” Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia , ed. Sheldon Pollock (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003) 817. 27 dialects.” 65 With this new, yet artificially old, definition of Hindi, supporters were able to justify its position as arya bhasha or the language which would encompass true Indianness, that is to say, it was viewed as the language most qualified to stand as lingua franca of the nation. With this in mind “the same mythical ‘Hindi’ appeared in the Sabha’s first annual report, which credited

Hindi literature with an age of eight centuries.”66 As they created a narrative surrounding Hindi and its esteemed position in Indian culture and history, they also needed to create a counter narrative describing the forces which tried to hold back the progress of this language. Specifically, Muslims and Urdu were accused of such a prejudice.

Regardless of the Nagari Pracharini Sabha’s relatively benign origins, its members did not take long to start making political waves. Their demands started off as seemingly non-confrontational. In a declaration from 1896, they

“did not ask for a change in the court language or for the elimination of the Urdu script, but rather requested that ‘the written character of the immense majority of the people [i.e. the Nagari script] should be used in government courts, and all summonses, decisions and decrees should be issued in that character.’” 67

Over the next year, their tone grew more aggressive as they referred to the opponents of their mission as “bigots” and, in short, claimed that overall

65 Christopher King, 127. 66 Ibid, 151. 67 Ibid, 149. 28 progress of India was dependent upon the recognition of the Nagari script. 68

The Sabha’s claims showed that they were officially claiming that Nagari was inherently a writing system of the people. Though they do not state it outright, they strongly imply that the languages and scripts currently recognized (i.e.

English and Urdu) are implicitly foreign.

Finally, in April 1900, the Sabha’s wishes were fulfilled. Nagari was recognized by the government for use in the courts and offices of the

Northwestern Provinces and Oudh.69 The official wording is as follows:

(1) All persons may present their petitions or complaints either in the

Nagri or the Persian character, as they shall desire

(2) All summonses, proclamations, and the like in vernacular issuing to

the public from the courts or from revenue officials, shall be in the

Persian and the Nagri characters, and the portion in the latter shall

invariably be filled up as well as that in the former.

(3) No person shall be appointed, except in a purely English office, to

any ministerial appointment henceforward unless he can read and

write both the Nagri and Persian characters fluently.70

These words seem to indicate that the goals of the Sabha had been achieved completely. However, Christopher King writes that this accomplishment was

68 Ibid, 153. 69 Ibid, 18. 70 Ibid, 155. 29

“largely symbolic” in that there was very little actual change on an administrative scale. 71 What did change were the sentiments of both Hindi and

Urdu supporters with the former seeing the resolution as a “great victory” and the latter interpreting it as a “calamitous defeat.”72

The fallout from this perceived defeat brought about an intense response from the Muslim intellectual community. Part of the response was to assert the definition of Urdu as a Muslim language. It was such a resolution which motivated the creation of the Urdu Defence Association. At one gathering in

1900, Mohsin ul-Mulk went as far as to declare Urdu the language of the Indian

Muslim community as a reaction to the recognition of Nagari. 73 In the

Mohammedan Educational conference of 1901, there was also a discussion of the Muslim nature of Urdu. 74 This backlash could have been partially attributed to the exact wording of the resolution, which was changed by the Government of India. Though Lt. Gov. McDonnell originally wrote simply that both Nagari and Persian character should be accepted, the Government had added the words “Hindi and Urdu languages.” 75 Under this change, the British

Government had established that they were not simply allowing two ways of

71 Ibid, 126. 72 Ibid, 153. 73 M.S. Jain, Muslim Political Identity (New Delhi: Rawat Publications, 2005) 92. 74 Ibid. 75 Alok Rai, “Making a Difference: Hindi, 1880-1930,” The Annual of Urdu Studies 10 (1995): 143. 30 writing the same language, but they established there were officially two distinct languages in play.

Ten years later, the Nagari Pracharini Sabha had come to be seen as more of a regional organization. 76 As a result, yet another organization was formed to promote the cause of Hindi with a wider, cross-regional influence. In

1910, Madan Mohan Malaviya, who was also instrumental in the Nagari movement, laid the foundation for the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. The Hindi

Sahitya Sammelan, unlike the Nagari Pracharini Sabha, was a political organization from its very beginnings and this organization played a significant role in the popularization and spread of Hindi. 77 Much like the Urdu movements in which Abdul Haq participated, the HSS was highly concerned with education and went on to develop an extensive network of examinations in different provinces of India in order to further popularize the Hindi language. 78 The

Sammelan is seen, in current scholarship, as being different from the Anjuman, however, in that its organization was reportedly much stronger. Its strength is said to have been its independence from “the congress or (…) any other political organization” and over the course of its existence it “autonomously developed an extensive educational system for the dissemination of education

76 Jyotirindra Das Gupta, Language Conflict and National Development (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970) 113. 77 Hans Dua, “The National Language and the Ex-Colonial Language as Rivals: The Case of India,” The International Political Science Review 14.3(1993): 294. 78 Ibid, 294. 31 in Hindi” which included the aforementioned exams along with the publishing of textbook and employment of teachers. 79 On the opposite side, the Anjuman was viewed as a “largely cultural association” without such an effective organizational structure. 80 This impression is debatable, however, considering

Abdul Haq’s and the Anjuman’s visibility and involvement with the language politics of this era. There was simply a different tactic used by Haq in that he found it beneficial to incorporate a number of institutions and resources in accomplishing his goals instead of utilizing just one central organization.

In a way, Malaviya can be viewed as a sort of antithesis to Haq. Much like Haq, his life’s calling was in the service of language. From his involvement with multiple organizations working towards for the promotion of Hindi to his leadership of Banaras Hindu University which, like Osmania University, would be a pioneering institution in the usage of the vernacular as a pedagogical language, he strove to promote Hindi through the means of education. 81

Malaviya was deeply involved in the establishing of BHU and its goal of teaching a Sanskritic and Hindu-centered curriculum which promoted a type of

Hindi which was devoid of Persian and Arabic influence. He believed in the

79 Das Gupta, 125. 80 Ibid. 81 Paul Brass, “Elite Interests, Popular Passions, and Social Power in the Language Politics of India,” Themes in Politics: Language and Politics in India , ed. Asha Sarangi (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009) 186. 32 idea that Urdu was an intrinsically foreign language and viewed any requirement of learning Urdu as akin to “forced conversion.” 82

Though Malaviya was the founder of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, it was not long before new leadership attempted to change its ideology. Among the

Sammelan’s membership could be found the names of Mahatma Gandhi,

Jawaharlal Nehru, and Rajendra Prasad. Another of the founding members was

Purushottam Das Tandon who later became one of Abdul Haq’s main opponents. However, in the earlier years of the Sammelan, Gandhi was the one who took control from Malaviya.

In 1917, Gandhi became the president of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan.

His opinions on the national language differed greatly from Malaviya’s. Though he still spoke of the language as Hindi at this point, his definition was that this

Hindi was “the common language of Hindus and Muslims and as a language that would be comprehensible to the Indian people in general.” 83 It was also his view that, in hopes of being more accessible to the average Indian, the

Sammelan should be distanced from the Hindi literary elite.

Gandhi’s actions in the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan were some of the first signs of his growing concern with linguistic compromise between the antagonistic Hindi and Urdu supporters. His support of the Hindustani movement, however, eventually put him at odds with members of both sides.

82 Alok Rai, 142-143. 83 Das Gupta, 113. 33

His claim was that the language of the village was the one that should be named the national language of India. He said “I cannot find the softness I find in the village speech either in the way our Muslim brothers speak in Lucknow or pundits speak in Prayag. The best language is one which common people can understand; everyone understands village speech.” 84 Of course, this is at odds with the fact that Gandhi also founded the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar

Sabha in 1918 which was meant to promote Hindi in South India. One might imagine that the language spoken in those villages had no resemblance to the language in Gandhi’s ideal village. In one insensitive statement, he responded to protests against this intrusion by saying, “A spirit that is so exclusive and narrow as to want every form of speech to be perpetuated and developed, is anti-national and anti-universal. All underdeveloped and un-written dialects should … be sacrificed and merged in the great Hindustani stream. It would be a sacrifice … not a suicide.” 85

Whether or not Gandhi’s idealistic notions regarding Hindustani were realistic or not, the Hindustani movement garnered plenty of support during the

1920s from both Hindus and Muslims, like Abdul Haq. During this time, Gandhi was also involved with the Indian National Congress, and he brought his language concerns there as well. In 1923, the Cocanada Congress decided that

84 Francesca Orsini, The Hindi Public Sphere 1920-1940 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 359. 85 Robert King, Nehru and the Language Politics of India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997) 82. 34 their annual sessions should be conducted in Hindustani. Twelve years later, in

1934, Hindustani was adopted as the language for the proceedings of the whole Congress. 86 Beyond organizational mandates, Gandhi’s Hindustani movement was also supported by such figures as Jawaharlal Nehru and

Munshi Premchand.

Nehru was another influential figure who was associated with the fight for

Indian independence. He also held strong views about the necessity of a common language for the country. He is said to have been a firm supporter of

Hindustani, but he also diverged somewhat from Gandhi’s utopian vision.

Unlike Gandhi, whose first language was Gujarati, Nehru grew up in an environment of Hindi and Urdu speakers. He even showed a great affinity for

Urdu study while he was imprisoned in 1934, though English seemed to be the language in which he had the greatest facility. 87 He viewed Urdu as “an icon of secular tolerance in a largely Hindu society.” 88 In regards to Hindustani, Nehru held the idea that there should be something like a “‘Basic Hindustani’ along the lines of the ‘Basic English’ proposed as an international auxiliary language by

C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards.” 89 He also made use of the Hindustani language in the Roman script, which he claimed did not please Gandhi. Later on, Nehru

86 Granville Austin, “Language and the Constitution: The Half-Hearted Compromise ,” Themes in Politics: Language and Politics of India, ed. Asha Sarangi (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009) 48-49. 87 Robert King, 154. 88 Ibid, 202. 89 Ibid, 83. 35 would play a key role, unsuccessfully, in trying to fix the rift that Gandhi’s words created at the first Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad conference.

In the years leading up to the conference, the British government once again stepped in to create an even more complicated political situation. In 1933, the British came out with a number of proposals for constitutional reform under the title “The White Paper.” These proposals were viewed in a negative light, especially by those involved in the creation of the Progressive Writers

Association, and were “regarded … as a continuation of autocratic British rule in the guise of a concession of (semi-) autonomous federated democratic structures for India.” 90 The more official incarnation of the White Paper became the Government of India Act of 1935.

Though the Government of India act of 1935 was seemingly a compromise to give more power to Indians, it also brought about additional political controversy. Over the previous decade, they British saw that because of the ongoing political unrest, they would have to make some type of compromise. Specifically, the act “provided for a significant extension of the range of self government. This act envisaged a considerable measure of autonomy and responsible government in the provinces.” 91 The secretary of state of India at the time described what this kind of autonomy would mean for

90 Ben Baer, “Shit Writing: Mulk Raj Anand’s Untouchable , the Image of Gandhi, and the Progressive Writers’ Association,” Modernism/Modernity 16.3(2009): 575. 91 Das Gupta, 117. 36

India. He claimed that as governmental problems were becoming more complicated, there was a growing need for involvement by Indians. He also theorized that there could be two varieties of autonomy: one which involves a good amount of intervention from the central government, and one without. In his opinion, the kind without any interference would be the most successful. 92

What this policy meant for those involved in the ongoing language conflict was that there was much more at stake. Instead of sending resolutions and memorials to the central government with the hopes of some change in their favor, Indian politicians would be in direct competition with their peers in an election. In addition, there was debate over the idea of separate electorates for minority populations including Muslims and Untouchables. In the end, the act did increase the electorate from 10 million to 30 million, but since there were property requirements most of these people were of an elite class. Especially in the village, those who gained the right to vote were of a class that was overwhelming supportive of the Congress. This was seen as a problem by many in the Muslim community. 93 An example of a negative response to these changes can be found in the opening address of the twenty-fourth session of the All-India Muslim league, which convened on April 11, 1936, in Bombay. The chairman of the session said, “A constitution is literally being forced on us by

92 Nirmal Mukarji, “Self Government and Its Instrumentalities,” Economic and Political Weekly 29.14(1994): 789. 93 Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition:A History of ModernIndia (Hyderabad:Orient Longman Private Limited, 2004) 323-325. 37 the British Parliament, which nobody likes, which no one approves of. … It is anti-democratic, it will strengthen all the most reactionary elements in the country, and instead of helping us to develop on progressive lines, it will enchain and crush the forces working for democracy and freedom.” 94 He emphasized that, more than anyone, the Muslims of the country would be the ones crushed.

In the midst of all this turmoil and conflict, the Bharatiya Sahitya

Parishad’s first meeting was scheduled to take place in Nagpur in April 1936.

This was also the time of the first meeting of the Progressive Writers’

Association and only several days after a meeting of the Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan. Of even greater note was that this meeting was taking place just a year after the passing of the Government of India act of 1935, which was a large motivating factor for the founding of the Progressive Writers’ Association.

This was also just one year before the elections which were the result of the

Government act.

Akhtar Hussain Raipuri, Abdul Haq’s colleague at this time in the

Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu, recounts the events preceding the Parishad meeting while in the company of Abdul Haq. He writes that during this time, things at the

Anjuman were tense since “some people were openly taking advantage of

94 Shan Muhammad, comp., The Indian Muslims: A Documentary Record , vol. 10 (New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan, 1990) 174. 38

Maulvi Sahib’s good nature and his absence [from Aurangabad].” 95 Because of these problems in the workings of the Anjuman, Raipuri and Haq were to travel to Hyderabad to resolve the matter, but their plans were changed at the last minute. Raipuri writes:

Our train was to leave for Hyderabad in the evening, so in order to pass

the time, Maulvi Sahib decided to go to the Jamia Millia which in those

days was lodged in some rented houses in Qarol Bagh. We went to

Professor Mujib’s house, and he informed Dr. Zakir Hussain 96 and

others. During the course of the conversation, Dr. Zakir Hussain said,

‘Gandhiji is holding a meeting in Nagpur tomorrow. Why don’t you stop

there on your way?’

I can’t say whether Maulvi Sahib remembered the invitation. I certainly

did, but had refrained from mentioning it because up to that point while

Maulvi Sahib approved of Gandhiji, I was quite mistrustful of him.

Anyhow, Maulvi Sahib espoused Dr. Zakir’s suggestion, for it offered a

good chance of meeting intellectuals from the different linguistic groups

of India, and also the opportunity of talking informally with Gandhi. 97

95 Akhtar Raipuri, The Dust of the Road , trans. Amina Azfar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 64. 96 Zakir Hussain would later go on to run the Anjuman’s India branch after Abdul Haq fled to Pakistan 97 Raipuri, 65. 39

It almost seems fated that when their train stopped in Nagpur, they encountered such men as Munshi Premchand, Jawaharlal Nehru and Acharya

Narendra Dev. Since Raipuri and Haq had made no firm plans to attend the conference, nobody was expecting their arrival and they had made no arrangements for a place to stay the night. This meant that they would end up staying in the train station itself. However, the timing and company seemed to be too perfect for them to pass up this opportunity. Unfortunately, the events that were to follow would escalate the Hindi/Urdu controversy past the point of reconciliation.

In Gandhi’s speech at the conference, which took place on April 24,

1936, he opened by claiming that he was “out of place in a conference of litterateurs especially as he knew better than anyone else that his knowledge of

Hindi literature … was nothing to speak of.” 98 This raises the question of whether he was really qualified to be leading a meeting of an organization which was, by name, a literary organization. The hope was that Gandhi would be able to act as a neutral party in order to attract writers and intellectuals from both sides of the Hindi/Urdu debate. This was not necessarily a bad idea, considering the difficulty the Progressive Writers’ Association had in getting

Hindi writers to join their cause. However, the problem seemed to be that

98 Mahatma Gandhi, “Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,” GandhiServe 1 May 2010, record 466. 40

Gandhi did not fully understand the tensions that were in play at the time or he may have been more careful with his choice of words.

After Gandhi’s opening statements on the state of Indian literature, he proceeded to discuss his views on language for the remainder of that day.

Akhtar Raipuri describes Gandhi’s words as opening something of a “Pandora’s box” which would have far-reaching implications. When he spoke of his vision for a national language, he did not stick with what he had previously called simply “Hindustani,” but he changed his phrasing and termed it “Hindi-

Hindustani.” 99 This was interpreted by Abdul Haq to be evidence that Gandhi was no longer working for unity and equality between Hindi and Urdu and ostensibly Hindus and Muslims, but his loyalties had shifted more towards the side of Hindi.

Most scholarly accounts of this event only acknowledge Gandhi’s change of terminology and the bad feelings that resulted on the part of Urdu supporters.

This leads one to believe that those on the Urdu side of the debate were behaving irrationally and simply misunderstood Gandhi’s good intentions. What these accounts leave out is the heated conversation between Gandhi and Abdul

Haq that happened during the conference. Abdul Haq’s account of this exchange explains more clearly why there was so much controversy. Haq writes about his experience with the Parishad, saying that he had originally

99 Ibid. 41 been told about the organization by K.M. Munshi who asked him to join the working committee. He claims that he agreed to join because it was supposed to be a literary organization. Regarding the events of the first meeting, Haq writes:

The matter was brought up about what the language of the organization

should be. I was asked and I said “Hindustani.” Gandhi inquired as to

why I selected Hindustani. I said that it is the Indian National Congress’

resolution that the Congress’ and the country’s language will be

Hindustani, moreover it is clearly written in the 21 st section of the rules of

the congress. Gandhiji said that this is not the meaning. I humbly stated

that the meaning changes after every ten years, so how will any work

proceed? Gandhi was on the side of Hindi. When the discussion

progressed further, Gandhiji changed his strategy and chose a new

language and name. That is to say, “Hindi-Hindustani.” I asked, “What do

you intend by Hindi?” He said, “The language which is in books, not in

common speech.” Then I asked, “What do you mean by Hindustani?”

and he said, “The language in common speech, not in books.” I inquired

about this saying, “then what is the Hindi-Hindustani language?’ He said,

“Going forward, the language will be Hindustani.” I humbly stated that

when Hindustani has already been in existence, what is the need to wait

fifty years? With this he snapped and said that he could not abandon

42

Hindi. I stated, “While you cannot abandon Hindi, why should we leave

the cause of Urdu?” To this he gave such a wrong and astonishingly

poor answer in which there can be no trust. He said “If Muslims want,

they can keep Urdu, it is their religious language. It is written in the

letters of the Quran. Muslim princes propagated it.” After this there was

no room for discussion, and I resigned from the committee of the Akhil

Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad. Now my eyes have been opened, and I

realized that the state of affairs is something else.100

The extreme nature of Abdul Haq’s response to this perceived offense by

Gandhi may have been, in part, due to his already-strained trust issues because of problems at the Anjuman. Also, some of those around him, such as

Raipuri, already had their doubts about Gandhi’s intentions and this could have had an additional influence on Haq. The reality is that he was not always so distrustful. Before the conference, Abdul Haq had been relatively supportive of

Gandhi and was even friendly with others who were well-known supporters of

Hindi. In one letter to a Hindi-speaking scholar, Pandit Vanshidhar Vidyalankar,

Haq went so far as to open with a playful attempt at writing a few lines in

Devanagari. 101 Raipuri also recounts that Haq had kept a spinning wheel and some garments made of khadi cloth in a show of solidarity with Gandhi and also

100 Sayyid Qudrat Naqvi, Mutāla’ah-yi ‘Abdulhaq , trans. my own (Karachi: Anjuman Taraqqi Urdu Pakistan, 1997) 36-38. (See: Appendix II) 101 Letters by Moulvi Abdul Haq , ed. Akbaruddin Siddiqi (Hyderabad: Hyderabad Urdu Academy, 1966) 12. 43 displayed a jug which was left from a time when Lokmaniya Tilak was in hiding.

After the conference, all of these things were either disposed of or put out of sight. 102 Akhtar Raipuri also provided Haq with a copy of the book Gandhi as I

Know Him by Indulal Yagnik. This book was an exceedingly scathing and cynical analysis of Gandhi’s action and could not have assuaged Haq’s feelings. Raipuri writes that after, reading Yagnik’s book Haq responded by saying, “I did not know that Gandhi was so wily.” 103

Beyond Haq’s own response, negative sentiments were expressed by other members of the Muslim intelligensia. This can be seen most clearly in the resolutions put forward by Muhammad Ali Jinnah in the twenty-fifth session of the Muslim League, which took place in October, 1937. In addition to further condemning the 1935 Government of India Act and the aggressive tactics being used by the Congress in the resulting elections, Jinnah spoke extensively about

Urdu and Hindustani. He first emphasized that Urdu was a language native to

India which was, more importantly, an inclusive language of both Muslim and

Hindu speakers. Because of this, he echoed the sentiments shared by

Jawaharlal Nehru, that Urdu could serve well as a means to unite these two groups. However, he argued that the Hindi-Hindustani language suggested by

Gandhi was meant to replace Urdu and was “aggressively artificial in character and is so far removed from the common life and speech of the people that it

102 Raipuri, 66-67. 103 Ibid, 57. 44 might rip the structural basis of Urdu, otherwise known as Hindustani, and adversely affect the growth of comradeship between the Hindu and Muslim sections of the Indian population.” 104

Around this same time, Abdul Haq was working even harder to further the cause of Urdu. In the next issue of the Urdu journal, he featured an article titled “Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad ki Asl Haqiqat” or “The Real Truth of the

Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad.” 105 In his scathing expose, Haq theorizes that

Gandhi had been in partnership with the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan in order to promote the cause of Hindi in opposition to Urdu. This had been the real reason, in his view, why the meetings of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and the

Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad had happened at nearly the same time and in the same city. In addition to his published reactions, evidence of his new resolve towards Urdu and against Hindi can be seen in a number of letters he wrote around the same time. In one letter to Khan Bahadur Abdul-Latif Khan in

August of 1936, he wrote about his plans to arrange his own conference at

Aligarh. 106 Abdul Haq then wrote to Akhtar Raipuri the very day after the conference had occurred to say how successful it had been. 107 In another letter written to Sir Ross Masood in the following April, Abdul Haq wrote in more

104 Muhammad, 195-196. 105 Abdul Haq, “Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad ki Asl Haqiqat,” Urdu 16 (1936) 210-229. 106 Badr Muniruddin, comp ., Ruq’āt-i ‘Abdulhaq , (Lahore: Khazinah-e-Ilm o Adab, 2004) 195. 107 Ibid, 66. 45 detail that the conference did take place on the 24 th and 25 th of October. 108 In addition to talks about Urdu promotion, he also noted that the decision was made to shift the headquarters of the Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu to New Delhi.

In his letters, one begins to see an even stronger drive in Abdul Haq.

Perhaps it was his feeling of betrayal by one of the most influential figures of the Indian political stage of the time stage that motivated him to double his efforts for the promotion of Urdu. Regarding his October conference, his sentiment seems to be far more communal, saying that the purpose was specifically for the promotion and propagation of Urdu. He then writes with excitement that when they move the Anjuman to New Delhi, they will also have a bookstore. He also seems to have sped up work on his dictionary at this time.

In one letter to Raipuri, written in February of 1937, Haq expresses his desire to have it printed as soon as possible. In several other letters to various intellectuals, Haq writes to clarify specific terms and definitions for use in the dictionary. 109 Throughout this correspondence, we see small snippets of his mental state. In one letter to Raipuri, he admits to feeling weak ever since the meeting in Aligarh. 110 Maybe this Baba-e-Urdu was feeling a sense of foreboding concerning his linguistic firstborn.

108 Ibid, 142. 109 Muniruddin, 125. 110 Muniruddin, 71. 46

On the other side of the controversy, Gandhi and some of the other remaining supporters of the Hindustani movement, especially Nehru, were attempting to convince the disenfranchised Urdu supporters, like Abdul Haq, that Hindi-Hindustani was not in opposition to Urdu. Not long after the conference, Gandhi wrote an article which appeared in the journal Harijan . In the article he presents his argument that what he meant by Hindi-Hindustani is no different than what people had been previously calling Hindustani . He goes on to ramble about what various persons and organizations define as Hindi and

Hindustani. In his mind, it did not actually matter what name is given to the language as long as it would be intelligible to the majority of Indians. 111

Nehru also made an attempt to smooth things over by publishing an essay called “The Question of Language.” He reasserted in this essay that

Hindustani written in two scripts is the language most appropriate for the status of a national language. Additionally, he wrote to members of the Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan to emphasize that the ongoing language conflict was detrimental to both sides. 112 At one point, it almost seemed as if there might be the potential for a resolution to this conflict. In August, 1937, Abdul Haq and Rajendra

Prasad met in Patna at a meeting of the Bihar Urdu Committee and released a statement saying that they both agreed that Hindustani should be the common language of India. This language would be written in both Nagari and Nastaliq

111 Gandhi, record 512. 112 Robert King, 197-198. 47 scripts and they resolved to put together a basic vocabulary for the purpose of defining this language. 113 In September, Nehru received a jubilant letter from

Sarojini Naidu exclaiming that “your language pamphlet is a miracle worker.

You should see the radiant satisfaction it has produced among the most disgruntled! Old Maulvi Abdul Hakk (sic) whose opinion counts for much in Urdu literary circles, to whom I had sent a copy, has since been in conference with

Rajen Babu and has returned glowing with satisfaction.” 114 However, the truth is that there is no further evidence of anything of substance resulting from the meeting between Haq and Prasad.

In 1941, the publisher Kitabistan in Allahabad printed a valuable collection of essays called National Language for India: A Symposium . In this book can be found essays by all the most important figures involved in the controversy surrounding language in India including Gandhi, Nehru, Prasad,

Haq, Tandon and many others. In most of these essays, Hindustani and its definition is a central issue. Gandhi’s essay begins by stating that “no culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive” 115 and continues along the same lines as

Gandhi’s previous writings on the topic. He writes that Hindi, Urdu and

Hindustani are the same language and tries to further defend himself against claims that he is “the most communally-minded of the Hindus.” Next, Nehru’s

113 Gandhi, record 281. 114 Robert King, 202-203. 115 Mahatma Gandhi. Z.A. Ahmad, comp., National Language for India: A Symposium (Allahabad: Kitabistan, 1941) 31. 48 essay contains a more detailed theory of the way language should be implemented in the government. He firmly states his belief that only Hindustani can be the common language of India. 116 Even Rajendra Prasad supported

Hindustani in his essay.

What we find in the essay written by Baba-e-Urdu , Abdul Haq, is a far more cynical outlook. His essay begins with an incredibly honest statement that seems to capture the dilemma of this whole period. Haq writes, “The problem of language has not been able to escape the influence of politics which dominates every aspect of our national life today. In fact, language has been for a considerable length of time one of the worst victims of political mistrust and dissensions.” 117 One has to wonder whether this is an introspective comment, considering his own growing mistrust after the Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad conference. In any case, Haq devotes the next few pages to a short political history of Urdu and the growth of movements for the Sanskritization of Hindi.

He argues that Urdu is really a more commonly understood language than

Hindi, considering its presence in regions besides just the North. He also chides such Hindi movements for completely ignoring South Indians and the fact that their languages are not necessarily Sanskrit based. He even blames the

Sanskritized Hindi movements for the increasing amount of Persian and Arabic in Urdu, since without their movement there wouldn’t be a need for such a

116 Jawaharlal Nehru in Ibid. 45-74. 117 Abdul Haq in Ibid, 82. 49 counter-movement. Haq uses such strong language that he even equates the removal of commonly used words from Hindi with the “expulsion of the Jews from Germany by Hitler.” 118

In another section, Haq shows a complete lack of support for the

Hindustani movement. While he agrees that such a language could function for the purpose of day-to-day conversation, it is not suitable for any sort of scientific or intellectual topic. He even disagrees with the often-supported compromise of using both Nagari and Nastaliq scripts for the same language. In

Haq’s view, all hopes of compromise are as good as gone and Hindi and Urdu have even ceased to be, in his view, regarded as the same language. In Haq’s words, there was a “time when these two languages could have been united but now their paths are diverging ever apart and it seems impossible to bring them together.” 119

Just as the languages Hindi and Urdu were diverging politically and linguistically in the 1940s, it seemed that their Hindu and Muslim proponents were sharing the same fate as their chosen languages. Even with growing talk of independence and partition, Abdul Haq remained focused on the task at hand. As late as February, 1947, he wrote in a letter about his plans for the

Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu headquarters in New Delhi. He seemed excited about the building of the Anjuman’s bookstore and all the publications that will be sold

118 Ibid, 88. 119 Ibid, 89. 50 there. 120 Aside from one comment about violence happening in Bihar, Haq does not express any worry about partition or any desire to leave India. This would soon change, though.

The first sign that something was amiss in Abdul Haq’s world appeared in his letter to Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Abdullah from June 30 th , 1947. 121 He states that Pakistan is inevitable, but laments that its creation will be dangerous indeed. Also, there have been people telling him to forget Delhi and move to

Pakistan while others implore him to stay. He believes, however, that since there are still many Muslims who will stay in India, there will still be work to do for the sake of Urdu. Either way, he closes the letter with a simple “ Main intazar kar raha hoon.” 122

Sadly, it seems that the decision of whether to leave or not was made for him. In October of that same year, Abdul Haq was still in India, but while he was away from Delhi the headquarters of the Anjuman was destroyed by an angry mob of Sikhs and Hindus. Haq mourns this fact in a letter written while he was seeking refuge in Bhopal. 123 Not only were all his belongings and documents destroyed, including the dictionary he had been working on for so long, but he grieves that a great writer, unnamed in Haq’s letter, had been murdered in the violence of partition along with his entire family. Still, Haq intended to travel to

120 Muniruddin, 143. 121 Ibid, 237. 122 I am waiting 123 Muniruddin, 261. 51

Delhi to assess the situation and see if he would be able to stay. The result must not have been favorable because his next letter, written to Malik Ram in

December of the same year, was sent from Karachi. Even with Abdul Haq’s decision to flee to the newly-created Pakistan, he could not be long distracted from his commitment to Urdu. The most pressing concern expressed in his letter to Malik Ram is that some subscribers had not received their copies of the

Urdu journal because of the confusion of partition.

Through this analysis of the years leading up to partition, I have argued that language politics were an important part of the nation building process occurring in India. It appears as if every visible political figure of the era had their personal view on the issue of national language. Some, like Gandhi and

Nehru, saw that there needed to be some form of compromise on a linguistic level for the same to happen on a religious and political level. Others were more focused on the promotion of a single language. Abdul Haq humored the

Hindustani movement for a time, but eventually saw it as a scheme that would actually hurt the cause of Urdu more than help it. With the mounting animosity and failure of compromise between Hindi and Urdu proponents, there was bound to be some kind of break. Partition was an unfortunate manifestation of this break. What this shows is that nationalism does not just have the power to unite and include, but it can also divide and exclude. In the last chapter, I look

52 at the role of language in this process and how reformers like Abdul Haq facilitate the use of language as a political and nationalist tool.

53

Chapter Three: Language and Nation Formation

Many authors have written and theorized about the nation and how it is formed. Others have written specifically about the formation of both the Indian and Pakistani nations. Benedict Anderson defined the nation as an “imagined community” of people who see themselves and others as belonging to a specific group which stands apart from others. How these groups come to be defined or

“imagined” is the contentious point. Additionally, the creation of the nation necessitates the approach that there are those who exist outside of the nation.

Judith Butler writes that while a nation is being created and maintained, it

“requires periodic expulsion and dispossession of its national minorities in order to gain a legitimating ground for itself.” 124 If this theory is to be accepted, then it makes sense that minority groups who see themselves as at risk for dispossession must either fight to remain within the nation or take steps toward creating a nation of their own. Both of these decisions require a separate national imaginary which is in opposition to the dominant imagination of the nation.

With all this discussion of imagination, it is important to point out that in creating the imaginary are elements of reality. That is to say, there are real tools used in its creation and very real consequences of its realization. Specifically, both the publication of journals and various types of educational reforms are

124 Judith Butler and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Who Sings the Nation-State? Language, Politics, Belonging (London: Seagull Books, 2007) 33. 54 used to promote a feeling of association with the nation. In the case of Urdu promotion, Abdul Haq was a central player in many of these processes. When looking at the actions of Haq and the greater role of language in Indian nationalism, we find that the languages themselves are not, by their own power, a central concern in nation-building. Languages gain most of their importance when they are selected to represent a rallying point for a community or if it assist that community in furthering their own political goals. Butler supports this theory, writing that “language becomes one way of asserting criterial control over who belongs and who does not.” 125

Nationalism is described, by Paul Brass, as the struggle to find a “multi- symbol congruence within a constructed community.” 126 In consideration of the

Indian context, two of these main symbols were language and religion.

Specifically, Hindi became labeled as a Hindu language which was intrinsically

Indian, while Urdu was viewed as the language of Muslims. It is then no surprise that one of the most likely compromises which had the potential to unite these two groups was based on linguistic principles. If the compromise had worked, and there had been a different result, then it is possible that the Indian community could have been imagined along different lines. These symbols can be seen as, in essence, arbitrary. In the case of both Hindi and Urdu, neither

125 Butler, Spivak, 59. 126 Paul Brass, “Elite Interests, Popular Passions, and Social Power in the Language Politics of India,” Themes in Politics: Language and Politics in India , ed. Asha Sarangi (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009) 184. 55 language was intrinsically linked to the Hindu and Muslim religious groups. There are millions of Hindus who do not speak Hindi and millions of Muslims who do not speak Urdu. However, Hindi and Urdu were the languages chosen by these respective groups as symbols which could unify their supporters. When these languages did not live up to the hopes of the community, they were then modified to better suit their intended purpose.

We see the evidence of this through the tactics that Hindu and Muslim groups used to represent their chosen vernacular. For the right-wing Hindi supporters, the Hindi language in Devanagari script was claimed to be inherently connected to the history of the Hindu people, who had been residing in that specific geographic location for arguably longer than groups like the Muslims or the Christians. Devanagari was, of course, the same script which Sanskrit was written in. In this light, the classification of what is most Indian seemed to be based in antiquity as evidence of authenticity. Therefore, the representation of

Hindi had to be altered to reflect this claim of antiquity. The methods of Hindi proponents essentially differed from the tactics used by Urdu supporters, such as

Abdul Haq. Instead of focusing on the age of the language, its universality as the supposed lingua franca was the most important claim. In Haq’s essay on national language, he argues for Urdu’s status, saying that “it is not limited by any narrow

56 boundaries of territory, caste or creed.” 127 This is in contrast to the words of one of his contemporary opponents, Dhirendra Varma, who in the same collection of essays, argues for Hindi in Devanagari by claiming that the script is around 2,500 years old. 128 As we study these arguments, we see that there is not just a battle over what the right language for India is, but also over what should be the basic considerations for deciding on the right language. However, almost as important as these political positions were the methods used for their propagation.

As Hindi and Urdu were being established as the languages of Hindus and

Muslims, respectively, there needed to be a way for the leaders of their movements to make their standpoint known to the average person and to gain consensus from other members of their communities. During the language controversies of the early 20 th century, the publication of journals became a very important tool in this regard. In great part, these journals served as the mouthpiece of the intelligensia to the rest of the population, since members of this educated class were often important players in the nationalist movements of colonial states. 129 Much like other journals of the time like Premchand’s Hans or

Gandhi’s Harijan , Abdul Haq’s journal Urdu was an excellent way for him to accomplish a number of goals. Not only was it a medium for promoting the Urdu

127 Abdul Haq. Z.A. Ahmad, comp., National Language for India: A Symposium (Allahabad: Kitabistan, 1941) 86. 128 Dhirendra Varma in Ibid, 273. 129 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 2006) 116. 57 language itself along with discussions of relevant politics, but he was able to use it as a way to gauge the sentiment surrounding new Urdu terminology created by the translation bureau. It was also a way for him to support and promote Urdu writers whom he felt would be important within the Urdu-speaking community.

I establish that very basic pieces of nation-building can be seen through this act of publishing. Not only was Haq producing literature to be read by individuals who spoke a certain language, but he was also creating that language at the same time. His decision to publish lists of words in the Urdu, as well as sending them in personal correspondence, before making them official, showed his desire to truly include others in the process: to form a community around the making of Urdu. Also, his inclusion of certain writers in his journal suggests an attempt at the creation of a sort of canon of writers. In effect, he was selecting which litterateurs the rest of the Urdu-literate public sphere should pay attention to. I put forth that this is a vital part of nation-building. Members of the nation should have a common literary sphere which they can all relate to and associate themselves with. Benedict Anderson writes that in the history of nationalist movements in which language becomes a key market of the nation, literature and publication are central processes which serve to standardize the language concerned. After the language has been standardized, which is exactly what

58

Abdul Haq was working towards, “stronger political demands could be advanced.” 130

I would argue that the Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad was also an organization created for the purpose of standardization. Instead of standardizing language, the founders of the Parishad wanted to standardize literature on an all-

India scale. The idea behind the Parishad was to bring together writers from all over India, regardless of language. In this way, they could have attempted to create something more akin to Indian literature, rather than having divisions like

Urdu literature or Hindi literature or Tamil literature. There were, however, manifold problems with this, as the efforts to create defined and separate languages and literatures had been going on for decades. The sphere of language politics had already become overrun by supporters for Sanskritic Hindi and the Urdu supporters, embittered by the battle to retain their language’s status as an Indian tongue. With Gandhi’s ill-worded speech and claims that he would not leave the cause of Hindi, it became impossible for anyone else to compromise in good faith. In turn, it became increasingly difficult for those rallied behind the causes of Hindi and Urdu to imagine themselves as part of the same community; or of the same nation.

Another way of establishing a language as a community unifier and standardizing it for further political use is through education and educational

130 Ibid, 74-75. 59 reform. Most of the language defense and promotion organizations were, for the most part, founded and maintained by the educated elite. Abdul fits easily into the category of educated Muslim elites. He was educated at Aligarh, one of the most well-known institutions of the Muslim community of India. Even though Urdu education was not a focus of that institution, Haq’s training by such figures as

Shibli and Sir Sayyid situated him in the influential sphere of educated Muslim elites and instilled in him a concern for the wellbeing of his fellow Muslims.

Through this training, and possibly through observing the tactics of Hindi supporters, he saw that rallying behind a specific vernacular, specifically Urdu, would be useful as Indian Muslims worked towards their political goals.

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan realized the great importance of education after his stay in Europe. His theory of higher learning, especially of modern Western knowledge, was linked with his own interpretation of devotion to Islam. It was Sir

Sayyid’s notion that education in Western science and philosophy would allow

Muslim scholars to prove with greater certainty God’s role in creation. 131

However, in a more secular tone, Sir Sayyid also emphasized during his time spent observing the educational system in England that “until the education of the masses is pushed on as it is here, it is impossible for a native to become civilized and honoured.” 132 It was likely that Sir Sayyid’s views on education

131 Stephen Hay, ed., Sources of Indian Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988) 191. 132 Ibid, 187. 60 would have had some influence on Abdul Haq to reform Muslim education in such a way that knowledge of Urdu could become beneficial to students.

Haq’s education and the view of education which he gained from Sir

Sayyid was of great benefit to him as he began his work. After graduation, he worked in a number of translation and educational positions before becoming involved in the development of Osmania University. Perhaps these experiences mixed with the politics following the British government’s 1900 decision to recognize Devanagari in North Indian administration showed him that the fate of his community would follow the fate of the Urdu language. It had been decided, at this point, that language would become a deciding factor of the nation. As there were already educational movements taking place wherein Hindi was being promoted as the medium of choice, Haq had to make Urdu into a language which could compete in that same regard. Since Western science and philosophy were quickly becoming necessary topics of study for anyone wishing to gain a position of authority, speakers of Indian vernaculars were finding their tongues lacking in vocabulary to tackle such topics of discussion. However, with Sir Sayyid’s idea that the masses needed to have a proper education, it would make the most sense to provide that education in a tongue that the masses could understand.

Luckily, Haq’s history of language study and role as translator prepared him to deal with this problem. He realized that translation would be a key part of transforming Urdu language in such a way that it would be beneficial when

61 providing higher education to Urdu speakers. If he was successful, it would be possible for such students to gain the kind of knowledge that would help them thrive in a modern world, but they wouldn’t be required to leave their mother tongue behind.

Simply modernizing the Urdu language was, however, only part of the task. In addition, Urdu would have to be accepted as a valuable language by the rest of the nation. In the end, who can receive education in what language is a decision made by the government and, especially in a democracy, by the majority population of the nation state. Conversely, it often turns out that the language which is most dominant defines what language people will choose for education, even if education is available in their mother tongue. This is the situation of Urdu in India in the post-independence period. According to the

Constitution, education should be made available to children in their mother tongue up to a certain age. 133 However, this is coupled with the fact that Urdu proficiency is not a sure route to gainful employment in most Indian states. In addition, finding a school and hiring teachers who can teach Urdu is not a completely straightforward task. 134 As a result, many parents choose to instead have their children educated in English medium schools or whatever language is most beneficial in the region concerned.

133 Hasan Abdullah, “Minorities, Education and Language: The Case of Urdu,” Economic and Political Weekly, 37.24 (2002): 2290. 134 Ibid. 62

Though a form of compromise which reduces the demand for Urdu education to an even greater extent seems counterproductive, such a dilemma is also indicative of the politics adopted by many leaders of the Muslim and Urdu- language movements of the 19 th and 20 th centuries. Sir Sayyid himself found it appropriate to adopt a more western style of education for Indian Muslims because of the fact that Indian Muslims were living under the rule of Westerners.

He realized that by refusing to adapt, at least in part, to the ideals of those in power, the Muslim community would be left at a severe disadvantage. Simply for the purpose of self-preservation, such a shift was deemed necessary. Of course,

Sir Sayyid’s methods of adaptation made sure that Western education would enhance the study of Islam instead of supersede it.

This same self-defense instinct is likely responsible for Abdul Haq’s support for the idea of Hindustani. The debate over the selection of this syncretistic language as a happy medium between Hindi and Urdu was taking place at a time when there was already uneasiness about underrepresentation for Muslims in the Indian government. The overall hope was that Urdu would be recognized as a language which was, by itself, important to Indian culture and to

Indians in general, but the reality was that Hindi was being supported by a far greater majority. When someone with as much influence as Gandhi sought to bring about a solution that would prevent the Muslim community from being put at a disadvantage, it only seemed appropriate that Abdul Haq would approve of

63 this plan. However, as history shows us, the attempts to implement Hindustani could not combat the existing animosity and distrust between Hindus and

Muslims at the time. Even though the conflict ended without compromise, that there was actually such a possibility demonstrates that association with a specific language for political gain is not concrete and can be adjusted if a better opportunity shows itself.

Though the choice to make language a central aspect of Indian nationalism was essentially arbitrary, the reality is that language became a criterion of inclusion and exclusion. The perceptions regarding which languages and/or religions were inherently Indian also decided which people would also be included within that classification. This calls to mind the words of Judith Butler and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak from their discussions on the nation-state. In the creation of the nation-state there is not only the defining of those who are included within the nation but also of those who are left outside of it. While the nation possesses some, it also has the ability to dispossess others. 135 Judith

Butler writes specifically that “modes of national belonging designated by ‘the nation’ are thoroughly stipulative and criterial: one is not simply dropped from the nation; rather, one is found to be wanting and, so, becomes a ‘wanting one’ through the designation and its implicit and active criteria.” 136 This process can be seen through the efforts of those associated with the Hindi/Urdu conflict. As

135 Butler, Spivak, 4-5. 136 Ibid, 31. 64

Indian subjects of the colonial state received increased power from the British government to promote their own interests, there was an even greater battle to remain within the nation or to exclude others. Abdul Haq’s efforts to promote and reform Urdu showed his awareness that language recognition would be a way that his community could be excluded from the nation. He realized that if Urdu- speakers and, by association, Muslims hoped to hold any sort of status in an independent Indian state, the language itself must also have its own standing within that state.

Most figures involved in Indian language politics recognized the importance and benefit of having a language recognized on a governmental and administrative level. The establishment of Devanagari as recognized script of administration in 1900 shows the growing association of language with an accepted view of the nation. This event also marks the beginning of standardized forms of language becoming politicized. Hindi supporters saw that without the recognition of Devanagari, those who were not proficient in Nastaliq or English would be left at a severe disadvantage in petitioning the government or gaining employment. In turn, Muslims who could read and write Urdu had a secure position in the government even if they were still technically a minority. The addition of an even greater source of competition from speakers of Hindi in effect removed this security and necessitated the existence of Urdu defense and

65 promotion organizations. There was no longer a benefit or need for Hindi speakers to use Urdu or Nastaliq, as there was before 1900.

In order for language organizations to exist, however, there needed to be an established process of differentiation in play. In the case of Hindi and Urdu, even this differentiation also became a point of contention. While those on the

Hindi side were trying to create a figurative barrier between themselves and those who were speaking the language of supposed outsiders, the Urdu supporters were left with a choice. Either they could facilitate the growing divide or attempt to deconstruct it. The point is that the decision to identify communally with a single language is relatively arbitrary. That is to say, there was no inherent association between language, script and religion until political groups formed these associations. In the words of Paul Brass, the argument over script was meant to “impose a symbolic barrier to communication between Hindus and

Muslims, which doesn’t in fact exist.” 137 However, as figurative concepts become more accepted by the masses, they become expressed in very tangible ways.

This calls to mind the schemata of language movements found in Brass’ essay. In his view, there are two separate processes that can take place. One involves retention of the ruling language while establishing vernaculars as unfit.

This process seeks to keep the elite class in power. On the other side is an opposite movement by groups of lower elites, often involved in education or

137 Brass, 196. 66 literature, that seek to prove the worthy status of their tongue. In order to accomplish this, elite languages have to be defined as foreign or oppressive. 138

The progression of differentiation and politicization seen in Hindi and Urdu movements is a vivid example of the way the nation was being imagined among these communities. Though theorists such as Brass will point out the supposedly arbitrary nature of such language movements, others make the point that these language debates were indicative of other divisions between Hindus and

Muslims. 139 The interesting aspect of these schemata of language transition is the way in which it shows a cyclical pattern. As Hindi supporters became more successful in creating their picture of Urdu as a language of invaders, the approach taken by Urdu proponents had to change. Over time, we see a change from Urdu defense associations to groups more focused on the promotion of

Urdu. What this shows is that instead of trying to retain their position as elites, they had essentially assumed the role of “powerless,” where Hindi speakers had been before, wherein they needed to prove the worth of Urdu. The defining and redefining of the language of the self and the language of the other shows even more clearly the role of language as a communal rallying point as well as a tool to forward other political goals. David Lelyveld describes the politicization of

138 Ibid, 209. 139 David Lelyveld, “Talking the National Language: Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani in Indian Broadcasting and Cinema,” Themes in Politics: Language and Politics in India , ed. Asha Sarangi (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009) 352. 67 language as the power to define “who could speak and who could be spoken to.” 140

It cannot be said that the Hindi/Urdu conflict was, by itself, responsible for the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, though Abdul Haq may have believed otherwise. There were countless other political complications over a number of decades that led up to that eventual breakdown of amicable dialogue.

The elections following the 1935 Government Act of India were a great point of contention to people like Jinnah and others in the Muslim League. However, even at that point there was still a distinct hope that the conflict would be resolved. After the disastrous events of the 1936 Akhil Bharatiya Sahitya

Parishad conference, the tone turned even more heated and distrustful with the sentiment that Gandhi’s call for a “Hindi-Hindustani” was specifically an attack directed at Muslims. By this time, the association of the Muslim community with the Urdu language had become so strong that a drastic change in ideology was nearly impossible. In the following years, Jinnah would become even more adamant about the need for a separate state altogether. By 1943, he states that previously “Pakistan was a resolution. Today it is an article of faith, a matter of life and death with Muslim India.” 141

By observing such a complex history of language and its political usages in South Asia, I have established how associations with language became such

140 Ibid. 141 Hay, 232. 68 an essential part of forming communities and nations within this region. I have also shown the way that individuals can choose specific rallying points to identify themselves as being members of a greater community. Beyond that, I argue that communal rallying points, such as language, are not necessarily concrete. To both create the nation and decide who is contained within it, something akin to an equation must be created. For example, it is possible for someone to see themselves as Indian, Hindu and a Hindi-speaker. This person may then see the nation as consisting of others who are Indian, Hindu and speak Hindi. In this equation, those who identify themselves as being Indian, Muslim and Urdu- speaking would ostensibly not be included in that nation. However, if it is possible for the equation to change in such a way to include Indians of any religion who speak Hindustani, then the latter may find it beneficial to change their own symbol of identification. If those who identified only with Urdu then chose to identify as Indian, Muslim and Hindustani speakers, then these individuals would no longer be left out of the dominant definition of the nation.

In essence, Abdul Haq’s support for Hindustani was a utilitarian type of compromise. At heart, his concern was solely for the sake of Urdu. However, he believed that Gandhi’s proposal for Hindustani had the potential to alter the popular perception of the nation in such a way that Urdu speakers, and presumably Muslims, would have more of an equal status without having to give up their vernacular. Before the failure of the movement, it seemed to Abdul Haq

69 that Gandhi and his supporters were willing to promote a more open and accepting definition of the nation. Haq trusted that the Hindustani movement was an attempt to reach a midpoint between the two opposing groups. However after

Gandhi’s speech at the Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad conference in 1936, Abdul

Haq’s interpretation was that Gandhi’s true intention for Hindustani was in essence geared more towards Hindi and Hindi speakers. It is hard to say whether Gandhi’s intention was actually to show more support for Hindi or if his words were simply poor decision making as a result of his ignorance regarding the actual linguistic politics and alliances of the day. Whatever the reason, history shows that the way his words were interpreted by Abdul Haq and others in the

Muslim community is largely responsible for the failure of the Hindustani movement.

When Abdul Haq saw that all hopes for compromise were lost, he returned to the view of his identity being fixed firmly within the category of “Urdu speaker.”

Though he seemed to partially follow the ideals of Sir Sayyid in regard to compromising with those in power, any action which would be to the detriment of

Urdu was unacceptable. Before Partition, Abdul Haq still thought of himself as remaining within the Indian nation, and he continued to fight for the position of

Urdu in that nation. However, as time went on and willingness to resolve the conflict in a peaceful manner dwindled, the demand for and likelihood of a separate nation became stronger. If Indian Muslims could no longer see

70 themselves as being a part of the Indian nation as it was being imagined and if they could see no hope for change in this regard, there could be no other solution than imagining a separate nation. To remain within a nation which held, in their minds, no place for them would essentially make them into a people without a nation. With this dilemma, the growing demand for, and imagining of, Pakistan eventually turned into a reality.

Some may say that the creation of Pakistan with Urdu as the national language was a victory of Muslims and Urdu speakers. However, this supposed victory was also a defeat on a number of levels. For the Urdu-speaking Muslims who remained in India after Partition, the situation and representation of their language was even more complicated than before. Not only did they become an even smaller minority, but their language, which was already being labeled as that of outsiders, could then be associated with a completely separate country, which was seen by many as the enemy of India. Abdul Haq was aware of this problematic, considering the acts of violence which necessitated his own escape to Pakistan. Even though, in later decades, he would say that Urdu created

Pakistan, it would never be completely absent from India. In addition, the linguistic situation in Pakistan was in no way clear-cut. Though the decades of the Hindi/Urdu conflict had conferred upon Urdu a clear definition as a Muslim language, the creation of Pakistan brought to light the fact that not all South

Asian Muslims were Urdu-speaking people. The conflict with the Bengali

71 speaking Muslims of what was then East Pakistan is the most well-known example. In a backlash that suggests history repeating itself, there was yet another partition in which East Pakistan became Bangladesh. Perhaps, if Abdul

Haq had been alive in 1971, he could have also said that Urdu, or the opposition to it, created Bangladesh.

Benedict Anderson wrote, “Language is not an instrument of exclusion.”

Language cannot exclude because, in Anderson’s view, “anyone can learn any language.” 142 This statement seems to contradict the great effect that language politics had on the South Asian region. Anderson clarified that nationalism is not created by a specific language but by print-language. 143 However, even this is an oversimplification. More important than just the print-language, is the process of creating and standardizing a language. In the decades before Partition, Abdul

Haq was the most central figure in the sphere of Urdu reform and politics. His leadership in such a variety of literary and educational spheres and the publication of his journal Urdu proves that the Urdu language was not, on its own, a language that could represent the Muslim community. It needed to first be transformed and standardized until it reached the form that would benefit the community politically.

In the end, looking back on Abdul Haq’s assertion that the Urdu language created Pakistan, I have argued that his words failed to take into account the

142 Anderson, 134. 143 Ibid. 72 very processes that he took part in. I have asserted that Urdu never had the power, on its own, to create Pakistan. Urdu had to be itself created and standardized by figures such as Abdul Haq. Language alone cannot be considered responsible for nationalism. I have argued that the truly vital aspect of nation-building is the adoption of that language as a key symbol of identification by a specific community and the establishment of literary and educational reform movements to transform it into a nationalist standard which can be used both to include some and exclude others.

73

Appendix I:

A Note on Sources

Throughout the research and writing of this thesis, I have become aware of a number of issues dealing with sources related to Abdul Haq. These problems differ depending on the language concerned.

Using English sources to research Abdul Haq was no straightforward matter. In several well-known books on Indian language politics, his name does show up. However, Haq is only mentioned in passing and usually as some sort of contrast to Hindi reformers. There is no English scholarship which attempts to look at his early life or his time at Aligarh. Amrit Rai’s “A House Divided” often refers to Haq’s thoughts on language and literature, but again writes no real detail of his life or greater impact. Kavita Datla’s recent article on Osmania

University shows some amount of progress by offering more information about

Abdul Haq’s important work in the Deccan with Osmania and the Translation

Bureau. Other than these, the only way to read more thoroughly about Abdul Haq is through translation. Akhtar Hussain Raipuri’s autobiography offers an interesting, though subjective, narrative of Haq and seems reliable as their close relationship can be proved by a certain amount of correspondence. There is one full biography about Abdul Haq which has been translated into English by the

Sahitya Akademi. This is the only source in English or Urdu I have been able to 74 find which makes any reference to Abdul Haq’s youth and details his time at

Aligarh. Unfortunately, this book has no references, so it is impossible to make any judgments as to its reliability.

Using Urdu sources presented a number of benefits and drawbacks.

There is far more written about Abdul Haq in the Urdu language, but the usability of these sources is affected by my own facility with the language along with a number of other factors. For example, issues of Haq’ journal Urdu were available on microfiche, however the quality of the scans were borderline illegible. This meant that I was not able to use this resource in my thesis as much as I would have liked. The most useful Urdu source throughout this process was the extensive collection of Abdul Haq’s personal letters compiled by Badr

Muniruddin. This allowed me to fill many of the gaps which were left by English scholarship. For example, I knew from Raipuri’s autobiography that the Anjuman

Taraqqi-e-Urdu headquarters in Delhi were destroyed after Partition, but Haq’s letters helped me realize where he was at the time and what his thoughts were regarding the situation.

By working with sources in both English and Urdu, I have tried to give a clearer picture of Abdul Haq as an important player in the Indian nation-building process. I am also hoping to make information previously available only in Urdu more accessible to scholars which are not proficient in the Urdu language.

75

Appendix II

Naqvi, Sayyid Qudrat. Mutala’ah-yi ‘Abdulhaq . Karachi: Anjuman Taraqqi Urdu

Pakistan, 1997, 36.

١٩٣٥ ﮟ ﭩ ﮩل ا وز ہ ﮯ رد ﮯ اور ن ہ ﮨ ا ا ا ﮨﮯ ﮨﮟ ﮟ ﮨ زن ﮯ اد ﮨں ہ ا دوے ﮯ ادب ﮯ ت اور ت ﮯ وا ﮨ ﮯ، پ اس ور ﭩ ﮯ ﮨ ﮯ۔ ں ہ ہ اد ہ ﮨﮯ ﮟ ﮯ ر ١٩٣٦ ﮟ اس ہ ہ ر ﮟ ه ارت ﮟ ﮨا۔ اس ا م " ا رہ ﮨہ " ۔ اس ﮟ ا ہ ہ ﮨا ہ زن ﮨ ﮨﮯ۔ ﮯ ﮟ ﮯ ﮩ ہ " ﮨو " ه ﮯ در ہ ﮟ ﮨو ں ﮨں۔ ﮟ ﮯ ﮩ اس ﮯ ہ اﮉﮟ ہ رزو ﮨﮯ ہ ، اور زن ﮨو ﮨ، ﮯ ﮟ دہ ٢١ ﮟ ف ر ﮯ ہ درج ﮨﮯ۔ ه ﮯ ہ اس ﮩﮟ۔ ﮟ ﮯ ض ہ ﮨ دس ل ﮯ م ﮯ ﮯ۔ ه ﮨ ﮯ ﮟ ﮯ۔ زدﮦ ﮍه ه ﮯ ا اور ا ُ زن اور م ۔ ﮨ ﮨو۔ ﮟ ﮯ ﮨ ﮯ پ اد ﮨﮯ؟ وﮨن ں ﮟ ﮨﮯ، ل ل ﮟ ﮩﮟ۔ ﮟ ﮯ ، ﮨو ﮯ پ ﮨﮯ وﮦ زن ل ل ﮨﮯں ﮟ ﮩﮟ۔ اس ﮟ ﮯ در ﮨ ﮨو زن ﮨ۔ وﮦ زن ﮯ ﮨو ﮨ ۔ ﮟ ﮯ ض ﮨ و ﮩﮯ ﮯ د ﮨﮯ ل ار ﮯ ورت ﮨﮯ۔ اس اں ﮯ ﮩ، ﮟ ﮨ ﮩﮟ ڑ ۔ ﮟ ﮯ ض پ ﮨ ﮩﮟ ڑ ﮯ ﮨ اردو ں ڑ دﮟ۔ اس اں ﮯا اور و اب د ان ﮯ ﮩ ﮟ ﮨ ۔ ہ ن ﮨﮟ اردو ر ﮯ ﮨﮟ ہ ان ﮨ زن ﮨﮯ۔ ن ﮯ وف ﮟ ﮨﮯ۔ ن دﮨﮟ ﮯ ُ۔ اس ﮯ ش ہ رﮨ اور ﮟ ﮯا رہ ﮨہ ﭩ ﮯ ٰ دے د۔ اب ﮨر ﮟ ﮟ اور م ﮨا ہ زﮯ ر اور ﮨﮯ۔

76

Works Cited

Primary Sources

Ahmad, Z. A., comp. National Language for India: A Symposium . Allahabad:

Kitabistan, 1941.

Gandhi, K L. The Problem of Official Language in India . New Delhi: Arya Book

Depot, 1984.

Gandhi, Mahatma. "Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi." GandhiServe .

GandhiServe Foundation, n.d. Web. 1 May 2010.

.

Haq, Abdul. “Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad ki Asl Haqiqat.” Urdu 16 (Apr. 1936):

210-229. Microform.

Muhammad, Shan, comp. The Indian Muslims: A Documentary Record . Vol. 10.

New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan, 1990.

Muniruddin, Badr, comp. Ruq’at-I ‘Abdulhaq . Lahore: Khazinah-e-Ilm o Adab,

2004.

Raipuri, Akhtar H. The Dust of the Road . Trans. Amina Azfar. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2007.

Siddiqi, Akbaruddin, ed. Letters by Moulvi Abdul Haq . Hyderabad: Hyderabad

Urdu Academy, 1966.

77

Secondary Sources

Abdullah, Hasan. “Minorities, Education and Language: The Case of Urdu.”

Economic and Political Weekly 37.24 (2002): 2288-2292.

Ahmad, Mukhtar-ud-Din. Abdul Haq . New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1991.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and

Spread of Nationalism . 1983. London: Verso, 2006.

Austin, Granville. “Language and the Constitution: The Half-Hearted

Compromise.” Themes in Politics: Language and Politics in India . Ed.

Asha Sarangi. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009. 41-92.

Baer, Ben Conisbee. “Shit Writing: Mulk Raj Anand’s ‘Untouchable,’ the Image of

Gandhi, and the Progressive Writers’ Association.” Modernism/Modernity

16.3 (2009): 575-595.

Bailey, T. Grahame. “Does Khari Boli Mean Nothing More than Rustic Speech?”

Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 8.2/3 (1936): 363-371.

Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar. From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India.

Hyderabad, Orient Longman Private Limited, 2004.

Brass, Paul. Language, Religion and Politics in North India . London: Cambridge

University Press, 1974.

78

Brass, Paul R. “Elite Interests, Popular Passions, and Social Power in the

Language Politics of India.” Themes in Politics: Language and Politics in

India . Ed. Asha Sarangi. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009. 183-

220.

Butler, Judith and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Who Sings the Nation-State?

Language, Politics, Belonging . London: Seagull Books, 2007.

Das Gupta, Jyotirindra. Language Conflict and National Development . Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1970.

Datla, Kavita. “A Worldly Vernacular: Urdu at Osmania University.” Modern Asian

Studies 43.5 (2009): 1117-1148.

Dua, Hans R. “The National Language and the Ex-Colonial Language as Rivals:

The Case of India.” The International Political Science Review 14.3

(1993): 293-308.

Faruqi, Shamsur Rahman. “A Long History of Urdu Literary Culture, Part 1:

Naming and Placing a Literary Culture.” Literary Cultures in History:

Reconstructions from South Asia . Ed. Sheldon Pollock. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 2003. 805-865.

Hardy, Peter. The Muslims of British India . London: Cambridge University Press,

1972.

Hasan, Tariq. The Aligarh Movement and the Making of the Indian Muslim Mind:

1857-2002 . New Delhi: Rupa Co., 2006.

79

Hay, Stephen, ed. Sources of Indian Tradition . 2nd ed. New York: Columbia

University Press, 1988.

Jain, M.S. Muslim Political Identity . New Delhi: Rawat Publications, 2005. Print.

Jayaram, N. “The Language Question in Higher Education: Trends and Issues.”

Higher Education 26 (1993): 93-114.

King, Christopher R. One Language, Two Scripts: The Hindi Movement in

Nineteenth Century North India . Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1994.

King, Robert D. Nehru and the Language Politics of India . Delhi: Oxford

University Press, 1997.

Kumar, Krishna. “Hindu Revivalism and Education in North-Central India.” Social

Scientist 18.10 (1990): 4-26.

Lelyveld, David. “Disenchantment at Aligarh: Islam and the Realm of the Secular

in Late Nineteenth Century India.” Die Welt des Islams 22.1/4 (1982): 85-

102.

___“Talking the National Language: Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani in Indian

Broadcasting and Cinema.” Themes in Politics: Language and Politics in

India . Ed. Asha Sarangi. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009. 368-

415.

Mahmud, Shabana. “Angare and the Founding of the Progressive Writers’

Association.” Modern Asian Studies 30.2 (1996): 447-467.

80

Malik, Hafeez. “The Marxist Literary Movement in India and Pakistan.” The

Journal of Asian Studies 26.4 (1967): 649-664.

___ “Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s Doctrines of Muslim Nationalism and National

Progress.” Modern Asian Studies 2.3 (1968): 221-244

Matthews, David J. “Urdu Language and Education in India.” Social Scientist

31.5/6 (2003): 57-72.

Mukarji, Nirmal. “Self-Government and Its Instrumentalities.” Economic and

Political Weekly 29.14 (1994): 789-791.

Naqvi, Sayyid Qudrat. Mutala’ah-yi Abdulhaq . Karachi: Anjuman Taraqqi Urdu

Pakistan, 1997.

Orsini, Francesca. The Hindi Public Sphere 1920-1940 . Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2009

Pandey, Deepak. “Congress-Muslim League Relations 1937-39: ‘The Parting of

the Ways.’” Modern Asian Studies 12.4 (1978): 629-654.

Rabbani, Ghulam. Anjuman Taraqqi Urdu Ki Kahani . Dehli: Anjuman Taraqqi

Urdu, 1939.

Rai, Alok. “Making a Difference: Hindi, 1880-1930.” The Annual of Urdu Studies

10 (1995): 134-149.

Rai, Amrit. A House Divided: The Origin and Development of Hindi/Hindavi .

Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1984.

81

Tollefson, James W. “Critical Issues in Educational Language Policy.”

Introduction. Language Policies in Education . By Tollefson. London:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. 3-16.

Trivedi, Harish. “The Progress of Hindi, Part 2: Hindi and the Nation.” Literary

Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia . Ed. Sheldon

Pollock. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. 958-1022.

82

Vita

Elizabeth Anne Bowers is a native of Eden Prairie, MN. She graduated in 2003 from Eden Prairie High School and began her college education at the University of Wisconsin: Stout. In 2006, she transferred to the University of Minnesota: Twin Cities. Elizabeth completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in Asian Languages and Literature in 2008. In August, 2008, Elizabeth began her work on a Master of Arts degree in the Department of Asian Studies at The University of Texas at Austin.

Permanent Address: 15800 Valley View Rd

Eden Prairie, MN 55344

This thesis was typed by the author.

83